Lewis v. LathamLewis v. Latham
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Lee
Mrs. Mildred Bell Banks and others, owning a four-fifths interest in Black Ankle Plantation, by their bill, sought a partition of the property and to charge, against the respective shares, the proper proportion of expenses incurred by Mrs. Banks in making necessary repairs and improvements. John and Minor Latham, owning the other one-fifth interest, and other parties, who were susceptible of potential interests, were made defendants. Before the issues were settled, Mrs. Banks died, and the cause was thereafter рroperly revived.
The complainants and cross-defendants, in obedience to the prayer of the сross bill, made a full disclosure, under oath, of all substantial dealings in connection with the operation of the plantation during the period of 1943 to 1952 inclusive; and alleged that the operations were carried on as an accommodation tо the cross-complainants.
The proof disclosed that Mrs. Banks, following the death of her husband in 1909, owned about 12,000 acres of land in De Soto County, much of which she farmed. In addition, she owned and operated, in the Town of Hernando, Mississippi, a mercantile business, a building and supply business, and a cotton gin. Her trade name for these businesses was Banks and Company. She looked after these operations personally and through employees. Black Ankle Plantation consisted of about 2,200 acres of land. The owners were all close blood relatives. "While Mrs. Banks originally held only a two-fifths interest therein, she managed the plantation as a unit in her operations. Her aunt, Mrs. Lou Latham, the mother of John and Minor Latham, lived in New York City. Following Mrs. Latham’s death in Deсember 1942, Mrs. Banks, who was then over seventy years of age, continued to operate the plantation with Miss Edna Davidson as manager.
There were about forty tenant families on the place. Land was rented to them at the customary rent of onе-third of the cotton and seed, the landlord paying one-third of the cost of fertilizer, poison and ginning. Land for corn, hay and other crops was rent free. Banks and Company furnished the fertilizer and poison at the customary local prices, and also furnished the tenants with their supplies to make the crop. It ginned the cotton for the same prices as were charged by other gins in that area. When a tenant brought in seed cotton, Banks and Company, as soon as a bale was ginned, purchased it and the seed from the tenant, according to the
From time to time, tenant houses, barns, cotton houses, etc. had to be rebuilt or repaired. Since such expеnditures were not constant, they were set up for payment over a period of years. Banks and Company furnished all materials at current prices in Hernando, less ten percent.
Government and all other benefits, accruing to the plantation, were collected by Banks and Company and were properly credited.
Banks and Company paid all taxes and assessments. It made no charge for collecting and remitting the proportionate shares of net rents to the parties; but, сommencing in 1943, it did charge for the proportionate salary and expenses of an employee, his horse feed, car expenses and depreciation, etc. in the supervision of the tenants.
At the end of the year, the books were аudited, and checks were forwarded to the parties for their respective shares of the net income from the plantation.
The proof showed that Banks and Company, in most instances, did not sell the cotton and seed, which it purchased from thе tenants, until several months later; and that, except for one year during the period, it made a profit over what it paid for the same.
The court below (1) rejected the accounting for the value of the cotton and seed as of the date of purchase from the tenants, and required such to be computed as of the date of sale in Memphis, less hauling, storage and commission charges, and also disallowed the one-third cost of ginning; (2) approved the expenditures for repairs and improvements, except $4,384.73 which was
The appellants contend that the court was in error in each of its four conclusions.
As herеtofore stated, the lands were rented to the several tenants under their agreement to pay one-third of the cotton and seed, with the landlord paying one-third of the cost of fertilizer, poison and ginning — the customary rental basis in that area. Consequently the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the tenants and the owners of Black Ankle Plantation. Schlict v. Callicott,
When a tenant brought in seed cotton, it was ginned and sampled. He had to рay the gin charges, satisfy the lien for rent, and pay for the supplies which had been furnished to him in order to make the crop. The value of both the lint cotton and the seed was determined by the then prevailing prices in the Town of Hernando, and thereuрon Banks and Company purchased these agricultural products from the tenant at such prices. It deducted the cost of ginning, fertilizer and poison, and credited one-third of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the cotton and seed to the account of Black Ankle Plantation. The residue of two-thirds was credited to the account of the tenant for sup
After a sale by the tenant, if Banks and Company thereafter was able to make a profit on the cotton and seed, such profit inured to its benefit; and it cannot be required to make a division thereof with others. The accounting of Banks and Company for rent, namely, one-third of the proceeds of the sale of cotton and seed to it by the tenants, after deducting the cost of fertilizer, poison аnd ginning, was based on the proper formula, and the trial court was in error in rejecting it. Hence the decree, in that respect, is reversed.
Now “the general rule is that a tenant in common is entitled to contribution for expenditures made for repairs which were necessary, when he acted in good faith and there was a substantial benefit to the premises * * * 86 C. J. S. 449, Tenancy in Common, Section 68, b. Repairs. See also
But the ditch here in question was constructed because, after the Arkabutla Dam was built, watеr backed up and closed the old Cow Pen Ditch. The Federal Government contributed $5,011.12 under the PMA Program. The expenditures were not incurred in cleaning out and repairing an existing ditch; but they were
Consequently the court below was correct in disallowing credit for the ditch, and in that respect, the decree is affirmed.
Insofar as the expense of supervision is concerned, it was doubtless reasoned that these charges for care and management would, and did, result in higher rents for the owners. Perhaps this is true. But in 86 C. J. S. 457-458, Tenancy in Common, Section 68, g. Compensation for Services, it is said: £íAs a general rule, one tenant in common cannot charge his cotenants for services rendered in the care and management of the common property, in the absence of an agreement for compensation, except where a statute provides otherwise or an order of court intrusting the management of the property to one cotenant authorizes compensation.” See also
The renting to the tenants seems to have been unconditional. There was no proof that the landlord, as such, reserved any right of supervision. Obviously it was to the interest of Banks and Company, in furnishing supplies, to have an understanding with the tenants that it could, and would, maintain supervision in raising the crop in order to prоtect itself against loss. But that kind of expense, in the absence of an agree
Mrs. Banks did not charge interest on advances for repairs and building supplies regardless of how long she was without her money. There was no proof of wrongdoing. The claim for the expenses of the ditch and for supervision would not evince a breach of any trust relationship. The mother of the appellees seems to have registered no objection to the manner of the operations during her lifetime. The appellees manifested real concern about the operations only after the construсtion of the ditch. Schwander v. Rubel (Miss.),
The cause is therefore remanded for final determination in accordance with the views hereinabove set forth. Costs in this Court are to be divided equally between the parties.